A note on the use of the term "holocaust"

I was listening to George Galloway's radio show at the weekend.
It's very often the only thing worth tuning in to.
I like him and many of his views.

He made a point that pertains directly to the contents of this think tank.
He said that there was only one holocaust: The Holocaust. With a capital "T" and a capital "H".

It is undoubtedly true that the Holocaust is an incidence of genocide that is very probably unique in various ways.

However, if a holocaust means or can mean a genocide or a great slaughter, then to say that the Holocaust is the only holocaust is to limit language unreasonably, as well as being factually incorrect.

Also the sanctify the Holocaust linguistically in this way, even though the Holocaust is probably unique in various ways, is to seem to create a hierarchy of genocides, something that would reasonably be seen as repugnant.

There have been many genocides and massacres in history - who is to say that only one should be referred to as a "holocaust"?

The word obviously has the effect of dramatizing and enhancing the negative aspects of a genocide. "Genocide" is more factual; "holocaust" is more emotive. "Holocaust" maybe implies more malicious intent and makes it sound more extreme.

The point about my spoof posters included in this think tank which included the phrases "Iraqi Holocaust", "Irish Holocaust" and "Iberian Holocaust" - terms which I do not personally think are inappropriate - is that they are based on the idea of an exhibition. They are to be seen in comparison with the posters advertising the Holocaust Exhibition in London.

I personally think many other expressions such as African American Holocaust and Armenian Holocaust are perfectly justified.

If there is a permanent and prominent Holocaust exhibition at the Imperial-ist War Museum in London, then this is giving public, prominent and permanent recognition of this genocide.

Recognition of some other genocides is far from being achieved in some cases and this is the point I was trying to make with my posters.

In my opinion the above makes sense in the context of the name of Holocaust Memorial Day, which I think is correctly named.
To remember the Holocaust and all holocausts.

http://www.hmd.org.uk/

------------------------------------------------------

http://www.aegistrust.org/

Hiroshima - The Worst Terrorist Attack in Human History

Hiroshima, whether justified or not - and it is possible that it was justified - was the worst, most destructive single (state) (terrorist) attack in human history. Let us hope this remains the case.

-----------------

Just to balance things out I will put this....

After the first bomb was dropped surrender was fully expected within moments. There was blood in the fireball. A town was rubbed out like a full stop with an eraser. And yet no surrender came. Three days later this was repeated. And still no surrender came.

A testament to the malevolent power of over-fanatical belief. "Tantum nationalismus potuit suadare malorum."...

There is still anger today in the UK about the way that Japan conducted the war.

----------

Monday, September 04, 2006


Something amiss

Martin Amis on Mohammed Atta in the Observer.Well. er. i will shut up. for now.

OK So Mohammed Atta may have been a reptilian religious psychopath.

As well as a human being of course.
And there might be not much more to it. I don't know.

Amis may not have been saying "those people are just like that" but I don't know if he avoided giving that impression.

But, most importantly, why doesn't someone write an essay examining the person and mind of an American "soldier" bulldozing sand over suffocating Iraqi conscripts?

Anyway I'm pretty fed up with everyone saying that 9/11 was some kind of uniquely evil event that changed the world.

It certainly didn't change the determination of the USA to invade in Iraq. The US was going to invade Iraq anyway.

I think the 15th/16th January 1991 was just as evil, disturbing and distressing as 9/11. But no one else seems to.

The 16th January 1991 as just as evil as "9/11". 


"16/01" was worse and more evil event than "9/11" in my view.

It needs to be said that Amis' essay on nuclear weapons, "Thinkability", is really good. It is a very complete and precise exposition of why they need to be opposed. Wonderfully written too.

----

Iberian Holocaust

................

Inspired by
"Horrors of the Inquisition" by Joseph McCabe, an excellent book.
inter alia....

The Rage Against The Machine allusion is rather appropriate too:

Their famous song "Killing In The Name Of" says correctly:

"SOME OF THOSE THAT WERE FORCES
ARE THE SAME THAT BROUGHT CROSSES!"

"Killing in the name of!"

In the case of the Europe-wide and centuries-long Papal Inquisitions, it was literally "killing in the name of Jesus".

According to the excellent book by Cecil Roth, "The Spanish Inquisition", any suspicion of Jewish descent was enough to warrant someone's burning.

Also the torture involved was totally pointless and ineffective. Many torture transcripts show victims didn't know what was going on, didn't know what they were being asked and simply wanted to know what to say.

There are many parallels between the Iberian Holocaust and the Holocaust itself. Some of these are pointed out in this same book, written near the time of the Holocaust.

People are still living today with some of the problems caused by the Iberian Holocaust.

Eternal shame for the Roman Catholic faith in whose name it was perpetrated.

It should not be forgotten that what was done to the Jews of Spain after 1492 was also done to the Muslims of Spain.

Also it should not be forgotten that the Inquisition of the Roman Catholic Church murdered many Protestants.

----------

----------

Good site about
Muslim Spain and European Culture is (now) to be found here (I hope):

http://www.sunnah.org/history/moors.htm


------------

http://www.geocities.com/iberianinquisition/

(Link is dead. Geocities seem to be part of the "halcyon days" of the internet - some wonderful sites no longer up. C'est la vie.......

It was a site which amongst other things, comemorated those murdered in the Iberian Holocaust. )

The words "British" and "schizophrenia".

-----

"...British seems to me to be a rather meaningless term..."

Kate Fox, social anthropologist, in "Watching the English", 2004.

-----

"Add to this the fact that they are given a label like schizophrenia - which has no scientific meaning,..."

Richard Bentall, Professor of Experimental Clinical Psychology, Manchester University.
in "The Indepenedent" Tuesday 6th March 2007.

-----

The boot is on both feet!

Timothy Garton-Ash doesn't seem to cite any examples of French intellectual debates in his assertion of Anglo-American superiority made in an article in The Guardian.
(http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2006/apr/27/comment.mainsection)


How can we say we've got the best when we don't appreciate what we're supposedly superior to?
The term "British intellectual" which he employs is indeed problematic, if only because anyone with a modicum of intellect can tell you that the term "British" is quite devoid of any meaning.


So to answer the question, no there aren't any "British intellectuals" at all, Timsy Wimsy.


Whenever I hear the word "British" I feel a shudder down my spine. So that's quite often.

George Orwell called Jean-Paul Sartre "a bag of wind." Fair comment perhaps.
TGA seems very pleased with this assessment.

Perhaps we shouldn't forget that George Orwell also wrote that "...the English are not intellectual".

So the boot is on both feet.

Ultimately this latter is unfair comment I think. It is in the context of an analysis of England in the 40s; but I think that even today there is still perhaps a lack of respect for ideas in England.


The average English person is perhaps less intellectual than the average French person.
.....






P.S. 2008.
One of the reasons that Paris might in some ways be a cultural backwater as according to this article is because of Anglo-American cultural imperialism.
How would we know if Paris is an intellectual backwater when the only way that England looks is to America?


....
----
P.S. 2009.


Sartre did a fine line in verbal dismissal himself.
I heard somewhere that he called A.J.Ayer "un con" - a cunt - though that's not so strong in French.
Ad hominem, but interesting nonetheless. :)



----------------------------


In 2009, Sartre is a more important philosopher than, for example, Ayer, in my opinion.


Ayer's views are quite simple and can be summarised in a page or two.

.......